Bombay High Court
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 August, 2023
Bench: G.S. Patel, Dr. Neela Gokhale
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
2023:BHC-AS:22931-DB Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
Gaikwad RD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4393 OF 2017
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari,
Aged 58 years, Occupation: Retired
Teacher, R/o E-204, Vasant Regency,
Opposite DG Nagar-1, Diwanman, Vasai
Road (W). ...Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. The Chief Executive
Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Thane.
3. The Education Officer
(Madhyamik),
Zilla Parishad, Thane.
4. Secretary, Tulinj Education
Trust,
Tulinj, Nalasopara (E), District:
Palghar.
5. Head Master of Late KM
Patil Deshmukh Vidyalaya,
Marathi Secondary School, Tulinj,
Page 1 of 7
11th August 2023
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
Nalasopara, District: Palghar ...Respondents
A PPEARANCES
for the petitioner Ms Savita Suryawanshi.
for respondent- Mrs PJ Gavhane, AGP.
state
for respondents nos Mr Sachin S Punde.
4 and 5
CORAM : G.S.Patel &
Neela Gokhale, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th July 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th August 2023
JUDGMENT (Per Neela Gokhale, J):-
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. The Respondents have filed
Affidavits in Reply. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. There is no substantial controversy in the present matter.
Having admitted on affidavit its liability and responsibility to
disburse 100% grant-in-aid to the 4th and 5th Respondents, it is
surprising that the 3rd Respondent Education Officer has still failed
to act on his own admission. It is in this context that we are called
upon to deal with the issues arising in the present matter.
3. The Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher engaged in the 5th
Respondent school run by the 4th Respondent Education Trust.
11th August 2023
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
The Respondents No. 2 and 3 are the Chief Executive Officer and
Education Officer (Madhyamik), Zilla Parishad, Thane respectively
of the 1st Respondent, the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner is
teaching the 8th Std in the school (Second Division).
4. The facts giving rise to the Petition indicate that the
Petitioner was appointed in the non-aided section of the school on a
temporary basis from 27th August 1997. Her engagement was purely
temporary and on contractual basis and her employment contract
was annually renewed with a technical break of approximately two
months between each tenure. Her contractual engagement ended
finally on 30th April 2002. The employment contracts are placed on
record.
5. By an order dated 10th February 2011, the Education Officer
approved her services and has declared her eligibility for 100% grant-
in-aid with effect from 1st June 2010. It is also an admitted position
that grant-in-aid was sanctioned for 5th to 7th Std and second
division of 8th Std from the Academic Year 2011-2012. There is
also a Government Resolution ("GR") dated 30th June 2014 to that
effect and Annexure 'A' to the GR includes the name of the 5th
Respondent, school appearing at serial number 8.
6. Despite the admitted fact that the school is granted 100% aid
from 2011-2012, the salary of the Petitioner is not released from
2012. She has received her salary only up to November 2012. The
Petitioner superannuated on 31st March 2016. She has not received
the arrears of salary and her retiral benefits including pension and
11th August 2023
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
gratuity as applicable. It is this grievance which has led to the filing
of the present Petition.
7. By order dated 20th June 2023 we had directed the
Respondents No 4 and 5, the Trust and the school to prepare a
statement of the amounts which have been paid to the Petitioner
and other similarly placed teachers from 2012 onwards, according to
them. The Petitioner was given an opportunity to verify such
statement as was to be filed by the Respondents. However, no such
clarification is forthcoming.
8. Ms Suryawanshi appearing for the Petitioner draws our
attention to the admission given by the 3rd Respondent, the
Education Officer, in the Affidavit in Reply clearly affirming that the
5th Respondent, school has commenced to receive 100% grant-in-aid
from the year 2011-2012 to the 5th to 7th Std and the second
division of 8th Std. She contends that in view of the clear
concession of the Department, her claim is no longer disputed. She
strenuously argues that not paying her salary till retirement is
contrary to service law and violate her rights and also points to a
circular of the State Finance Department of 1995 declaring that
interest would accrued in the event of non-disbursement of salary.
She thus seeks the arrears of her salary with compound interest of
12% per annum along with retiral benefits including pension and
gratuity.
9. Ms Gavhane, learned AGP, appears for the Education
Department of the State and contests the claim of the Petitioner
11th August 2023
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
despite their own affidavit to the contrary. When confronted with
the statements in their own affidavit, she tries to explain it by
referring to the date of the GR which is 30th June 2014 thereby
portraying the date of grant-in-aid to be the date of the GR.
Unfortunately, this completely overlooks the affirmed statements in
the Affidavit in Reply. Mr Punde, learned Counsel for the
Management, goes a step ahead. In addition to supporting the
Petitioner, he now comes up with a case that the school started
receiving 100% grant-in-aid from 2010 itself for all the divisions. He
also says that some amounts were also disbursed to the school for
releasing salaries of the teachers. His grievance now is that the
Department is trying to recover the amounts allegedly wrongly
released since, according to Department, the grant was approved
only in the year 2012. He thus urges us to restrain the Department
from effecting such recovery.
10. As we have observed at the outset the Petitioner's salary
claim is admitted by the Respondent, Department. Admittedly, the
100% grant-in-aid is approved with effect from 2012 and the
Petitioner is thus entitled to receive the arrears of salary from the
year 2012 from the grant. The Department has apparently failed to
disburse the approved grant. The name of the school appears in
Annexure 'A' to the GR of 30th June 2014 as an institution approved
for 100% aid. The contention of Mrs Gavhane that the grant is from
the date of the GR and not from the year 2012 is only to be stated to
be rejected for the reason that firstly, the GR itself is silent about the
effective date and secondly, the Department's own affidavit clearly
admits to granting aid from the year 2011-2012. To confound it
further, the letter of 10th February 2011 at Exhibit 'C' indicates
11th August 2023
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
approval of 100% grant-in-aid to the services of the Petitioner with
effect from 1st June 2010. This need not deter us from holding the
effective date as 2011-2012 for 100% grant-in-aid for the reason that
the Petitioner herself is seeking arrears of salary from December
2012 up to 31st March 2016, i.e., her date of superannuation.
11. Ms Suryawanshi also seeks interest compoundable at the rate
of 12% on the arrears from December 2012. We are cognizant to the
fact that the Petitioner is deprived of her rightful dues especially
since she has diligently and regularly discharged her duties towards
her pupils and her service record is unblemished. But compound
interest at the claimed rate is unreasonable. In these circumstances,
we deem it appropriate to allow 6% simple interest on the total
arrears of salary from December 2012 till 31st March 2016 to be paid
by the Respondent, Department.
12. The Respondent Department is directed to disburse the
arrears of salary as per applicable scale along with the interest as
directed to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the
date of the order. The Department is also directed to calculate the
retiral benefits of the Petitioner if found eligible having regard to
completion of qualifying service and other criteria and pay the same
to the Petitioner.
13. Rule is made partly absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) and
(c), set out below.
"(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ/
11th August 2023
Rekha Prakash Chaudhari v The State of
Maharashtra & Ors
1-aswp-4393-2017-J.doc
direction/ order in the nature of Writ of mandamus or
certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the
salary alongwith due increments of the Petitioner from
December, 2012 up to 31.03.2016 alongwith 12%
compound interest;
(c) That the Respondent may please be directed to
sanction the pension and pensionary benefits and gratuity
alongwith 12% interest thereon."
14. No costs.
(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 11th August 2023
Date: 11/08/2023 13:31:03
